Democrats And GOP Rebels Save The Day On Obamatrade

After the Republican-controlled Senate foolishly passed the so-called “Obamatrade” bill, the House leadership (John Boehner, Steve Scalise, Paul Ryan, et al.) worked their tails off to pass the bill. But a majority of Democrats and liberty-minded Republicans (small in number) rallied in opposition to the bill and voted it down. HOORAY! In this case, it was mostly Democrats who saved the day!

I have been saying for years that people who think the Republican establishment is a friend to liberty are extremely naïve. On issues regarding so-called “free trade” (it’s NOT free trade; it’s globalism masquerading as free trade), the Warfare State, deficit spending, globalism, and civil liberties, the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., is FAR WORSE than the Democrat Party. In general terms, the Democrat Party is worse on issues that deal with gun control, welfare, abortion, gay marriage, and extremist environmentalist policies. As one should easily be able to see, there is no “lesser of two evils” between these two parties. Each party is a greater evil, depending on the issue. And taken as a whole, both parties in Washington, D.C., are selling our liberties down the river.

But this so-called Obamatrade bill is a nightmare. If you thought NAFTA and GATT are bad (and they are), Obamatrade (TPP) is far worse. Even worse is that congressional leaders will not allow the public to know what’s in the bill. Heck, most of the congressmen and senators who are voting on the bill don’t know what’s in it.

Matt Drudge paraphrases Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) angrily growling at reporters: “You will read it after we pass it.” What a pompous, arrogant blockhead Mr. Ryan is. Obviously, he has been in Congress too long.

One of the senators who did read the bill is Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama). And he is doing his best to warn the American people about just how horrific this bill really is. Breitbart.com recently interviewed one of Senator Sessions’ staff leaders regarding the impact of passing TPP.

“Stephen Miller, one of the staff leaders for Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), joined Breitbart News Sunday and was asked by Breitbart’s Executive Chairman and host, Stephen K. Bannon: ‘Isn’t the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) really a global governance deal, rather than a trade agreement? Is this a way to get the United States into a Pacific Union, as Senator Sessions lays out, that is very much like the European Union?’

“‘That’s exactly what is happening here,’ said Miller. ‘The Pacific Union that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) refers to is the new transnational governance body that would be created by the Transpacific Partnership.’

“‘What this means,’ explained Miller, ‘is the house and the senate together would be authorizing the president to enter the United States into a new trans-national union.’

“The Union would consist at first of twelve countries, but additional countries could join and be added over time. ‘It could issue regulations about labor policy, about immigration policy, about environmental policies, and many other areas impacting American life, American jobs, and American wages.’

“Also appearing on the program, which airs on Sirius XM, Patriot Radio, channel 125, was Lord Christopher Monckton. Monckton, who served as a policy advisor for former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, argues that a Trans Pacific Union would bear a significant resemblance to the European Union, which Monckton insists is a serious detriment to democracy and leads to dictatorship.”

“As a result, Miller added, ‘the president can enter into an unlimited number of large sweeping international agreements. And, congress can’t filibuster them, at any point, for the next six full years.’

“Monckton retorted, ‘We’ve used this word before on this program–dictatorship. This is dictatorship.’”

See the report here:

TPP Enters USA Into A ‘New Trans-National Union’

The Obamatrade bill was proffered in two roll call votes. According to the rules established by House leaders, BOTH bills had to pass in order for “fast track” trade authority to be granted to President Obama. Boehner did this because he knew it would fail in one vote, as it was widely opposed by both Republican freedomists (a small group but enough to help defeat the bill) and liberal Democrats (liberals are not wrong on every issue). He was hoping he could muster enough support from both groups by separating the votes. His plan backfired. The first bill failed by a wide margin; so even though the second bill passed (barely), it was a moot point. The way to find the Republican rebels (America-first constitutionalists) is to look at the ones who voted against Obamatrade on BOTH votes. Here are those 37 brave Republican House members:

Justin Amash (MI); Dave Brat (VA); James Bridenstine (OK); Mo Brooks (AL); Ken Buck (CO); Michael Burgess (TX); Curt Clawson (FL); Doug Collins (GA); Chris Collins (NY); Paul Cook (CA); Jeff Duncan (SC); John J. Duncan (TN); Morgan Griffith (VA); Andy Harris (MD); Duncan Hunter (CA); Lynn Jenkins (KS); Walter Jones (NC); Jim Jordan (OH); David Joyce (OH); Raul Labrador (ID); Frank LoBiondo (NJ); Richard Nugent (FL); Gary Palmer (AL); Steve Pearce (NM); Scott Perry (PA); Bruce Poliquin (ME); Bill Posey (FL); Dana Rohrabacher (CA); Keith Rothfus (PA); Steve Russell (OK); Chris Smith (NJ); Daniel Webster (FL); Lynn Westmoreland (GA); Rob Wittman (VA); Ted Yoho (FL); Don Young (AK); Lee Zeldon (NY).

If you live in the district of one of these congressmen, you can be very proud of your representative.

And for those GOP House members who voted “Nay” on either vote, there is retribution from the Republican leadership. NationalJournal.com has this part of the story:

“House Republican leaders are cracking down on rebellious members after a near-disaster on a trade vote last week.

“Reps. Cynthia Lummis, Steve Pearce, and Trent Franks have been removed from the whip team after they sided with GOP rebels to vote against a rule governing debate on a trade bill, according to sources close to the team.”

“But House Majority Whip Steve Scalise had said earlier in the year that he would not tolerate members voting against rules and has already removed two other members [Jeff Duncan and Ron DeSantis] close to the conservative movement.”

See the report here:

Three Booted From GOP Whip Team As Leaders Crack Down

As for House Democrats, they held together in their opposition to TPP even when President Barack Obama personally went to Capitol Hill and lobbied them to support it. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) must be given credit on this issue, as she held fast in her opposition to TPP and encouraged Democrats to stand together in opposing it–which they did.

What is it about Democrat presidents who campaign against these so-called “free trade” deals when they are candidates and then become full-fledged supporters of the deals after being elected? Bill Clinton did the exact same thing. It just further demonstrates what I’ve been saying all along: at the highest levels of government, party affiliation, party platforms, and promises to party grassroots mean NOTHING. Powerbrokers are calling the shots; and the President (no matter the party) is too often but a pawn of these Machiavellians.

And if there is any issue that these international elites who are dominating Washington politics are doggedly determined to bring into being, it is the breakdown of national economic borders and the establishment of a global financial system.

Of course, one cannot have a global financial system without enacting a global political and military system to control and manage it. And, that, folks, is what all of these wars in the Middle East are about. It has NOTHING to do with the “war on terror.” It is all about establishing global government. The global elite are merely manipulating the West vs. Muslim façade to bring down those governments in the Middle East (Iran and Syria) that refuse to submit to the Federal Reserve’s international banking system and bring the oil-rich region of the Middle East completely under the Fed’s control.

Consider this: Saudi Arabia beheads far more people than ISIS. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one country that is indeed governed by strict Sharia Law. Yet, the United States considers the Saudis our dear friends and allies. And Christians seem totally oblivious to Saudi Arabia’s barbarism and intolerance. When is the last time you heard any pastor or Christian calling for war against Saudi Arabia?

Furthermore, independent news agencies are reporting that the United States is actually ASSISTING ISIS militarily.

Please take the time to read this report:

Anti-ISIS Coalition Forces Are The Target: US Warplanes Strike Iraqi Army Position, US Delivers Weapons To Terrorists

Folks, please turn off FOX News long enough to do some independent research. America is not at war with ISIS. America’s CIA created ISIS and continues to assist it. The U.S. government is using ISIS to attack its real target: the leaders of Iran and Syria who staunchly stand in the way of the U.S./Saudi Arabia/Israel machinations to centralize the banking systems of the Middle East. That is what the wars in the Middle East are truly about.

At this writing (Tuesday, June 16), GOP leaders and President Obama are collaborating on how to bring “fast track” trade authority back to the House floor for passage. But for now, it was House Democrats and that small number of Republican rebels who saved the day on Obamatrade.

P.S. Let me remind readers that we have just produced an hour-long DVD wherein Attorney Tim Baldwin lectures (complete with instructional slides) on the topic: “Police Contact: How To Respond.”

Tim explains your rights and the law regarding police contacts in a variety of circumstances, such as traffic stops, etc. He explains the rights and protections you have under the Constitution. He presents a constitutional, legal analysis of what you should and shouldn’t do when brought into contact with a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, or highway patrolman.

Tim is a former felony prosecutor and is now a criminal defense attorney. He has seen both sides of the criminal justice system and is imminently qualified to discuss this subject. He knows that for an attorney to best protect his or her clients, his clients need to know how to protect themselves before and during the investigative and arrest procedures.

Police officers are SERVANTS of the People and are as obligated to obey the Constitution as are each of us. Knowing these rights and protections will give you much CONFIDENCE when you are pulled over by a police officer.

Let me hasten to say that I am ALWAYS respectful to a police officer. And so should we always be. We must respect his position. But mostly, we must respect the law that he, the police officer, is sworn to uphold. But how can we respect the law if we don’t even know and understand the law? How can officers improve their law-enforcement practice unless citizens know when police are following the law? How is the legal system benefited if police can trample citizens’ constitutional rights with the consent of the people? Tim’s DVD will help tremendously in this regard.

In light of the climate that we all live in today, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we become familiar with our constitutional rights and responsibilities. If enough of the American people would learn these constitutional principles, they could stem the growing tide of unconstitutional conduct by our public servants, including, and especially, by those in law enforcement.

Here is where you can order the DVD, “Police Contact: How To Respond,” by Attorney Tim Baldwin.

Police Contact: How To Respond

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

 

 

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

House Report: IRS Prioritized Bonuses And Union Activity Over Customer Service

The House Ways and Means Committee released a report Wednesday showing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) prioritized bonuses for employees and union activity in the face of budget cuts.

Entitled “Doing Less with Less: The IRS’s Spending Decisions Harm Taxpayers,” the committee’s findings were staggering. They include:

  • This IRS made a 73 percent reduction in user fees allocated to customer service, and a 6 percent decrease in total funding for taxpayer assistance.
  • The IRS awarded $60 million in bonuses to its employees, at a time when the IRS did not yet know what its budget would be for fiscal year 2015.
  • The amount of time IRS employees spent on union activity would allow for over 2 million additional taxpayer-assistance calls.
  • If the IRS contracted with private debt collectors it could increase its own enforcement budget by more than $100 million every year.

The report comes just one week after IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said his agency could not handle customer demand:

Customer service – both on the phone and in person – has been far worse than anyone would want. It’s simply a matter of not having enough people to answer the phones and provide service at our walk-in sites as a result of cuts to our budget

“At all times, but especially during tax season, the IRS should put the taxpayer first. But instead, the agency cut funding for the very customer service that taxpayers rely on. The IRS has a lot to answer for, and the Ways and Means Committee is going to hold it accountable,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., lashed into Koskinen even further during a hearing of the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Wednesday.

The IRS has blamed the decline in customer service on budget cuts. But Congress didn’t cut the IRS’s budget for taxpayer assistance from 2014 to 2015.

Let me repeat that. The amount of money Congress appropriated to the IRS for taxpayer assistance was the same this year as last year, but the level of service has decreased drastically.The Commissioner himself has said that taxpayer assistance this year is quote ‘abysmal.’

h/t: Fox News

Do you think the IRS needs reforming?

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Lower Benefits, Higher Jobs — Paul Ryan Has It Right

Photo credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

Neel Kashkari, the Republican candidate for governor of California, just recounted in The Wall Street Journal his week on the streets of Fresno posing as a homeless man looking for work. At the end of his op-ed, Kashkari lamented that he didn’t need a higher minimum wage, paid sick leave, or a health care plan. What he needed was a job.

And Kashkari made the important point that all those government benefits, especially extended unemployment benefits, are work disincentives that may actually block job creation.

To be sure, there are signs that employment in the country is rising more rapidly these days. The February-July period was the first six-month stretch of consistent employment gains above 200,000 since 1997. And that came without any new programs from the federal government to “create jobs.” Even more surprising, those gains overlapped a quarter in which the gross domestic product actually contracted.

So what drove the increase? University of Chicago professor Casey Mulligan put his finger on it: “Major subsidies and regulations intended to help the poor and unemployed … reduce incentives for people to work and for businesses to hire.” And guess what happened when federal emergency job assistance ended? Job increases were the best they had been in 17 years.

Economists tend to focus primarily on the demand for labor in analyzing employment trends, giving short shrift to the supply of labor. Indeed, given the harsh winter weather and first-quarter drop in real GDP, it’s hard to believe that the demand for labor increased significantly in February and March. But is there anything about the supply of labor that could explain the improvement in employment?

Well, there is a very good reason to believe that extending unemployment benefits to a maximum of 99 weeks in recent years held back the labor supply. Rather than take a job, potential workers could more easily lengthen their job searches, hold out for higher-wage positions, or just choose not to work.

However, supply-side theory would also suggest that as extended unemployment benefits expired at the end of last year — despite major hand-wringing from the president and Democratic leaders — workers would go back to work. And they did. Technically, this would be visible as an outward expansion of the supply-of-labor curve. Without the crutch of continued unemployment benefits, workers are willing to take jobs, even at a somewhat lower wage. They know that work is its own virtue.

Now, if the demand for labor is steady, what would be the implications of an increased labor supply? Here, as the supply curve shifts, economic analysis would suggest that wages might fall somewhat–but the level of employment would increase. And guess what? Since the month after extended unemployment benefits expired, the number of employed workers has increased, the employment-to-population ratio has increased (59 percent in July, versus 58.8 percent in February), and the civilian labor force has increased (to 156 million in July, from 155.7 million in February.) Average hourly earnings growth remains sluggish, at only 0.2 percent per month over the past six months; but at least wages have risen modestly while employment gains have increased markedly.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Boehner Just Got What He Needed To Make Obama’s Life Miserable

Boehner Eyeing Obama

A proposal announced earlier this month by House Speaker John Boehner received overwhelming Republican support Wednesday in a vote that authorizes Congress to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama.

Although not a single Democrat voted for the resolution, it passed by vote of 225 to 201. As NBC News reported, the legislation does not require the support of the Democrat-controlled Senate. That fact did not stop Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from weighing in on the development via Twitter.

Prior to the House vote, Obama called the initiative a “political stunt.”

Before presenting the measure for a vote, Boehner explained that his motivation is not based on partisanship.

“This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats,” he said, “it’s about defending the Constitution that we swore an oath to uphold.”

Boehner, who has publicly rejected calls for impeachment proceeding from many within his own party, has indicated that he believes this suit is the appropriate legislative step toward holding Obama accountable for unconstitutional use of executive power.

Rep. Paul Ryan, who does not feel Obama’s actions have risen to the impeachment threshold, has been a vocal supporter of Boehner’s plan. Even some who might otherwise favor impeachment have expressed concern that the Democrat Party would seize on any such proposal as a way to rally financial support ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

Nevertheless, some Democrats in the House continue to assert that the suit might be a step in that direction.

“’Impeachment is off the table,’” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated prior to Wednesday’s vote. “Why hasn’t the speaker said that? Why are there those in your caucus who won’t deny that that is a possible end in sight for this ill-fated legislation?”

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz released a statement defending his vote and the overall intent of the lawsuit.

“I feel a keen responsibility to preserve and maintain the balance of power laid out in the Constitution,” he asserted. “Ultimately, if successful, this action will restrain excesses by future presidents of both parties and restore the checks and balances that were so carefully constructed by this nation’s Founding Fathers.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Here’s Why Paul Ryan Thinks Impeachment Would Only Strengthen Obama

shutterstock_180341123

As several high-profile conservatives speak out in favor of initiating impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, others are decidedly less supportive of such action.

While several Tea Party leaders, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, believe that Obama’s policy of de facto amnesty and a litany of other abuses qualify as impeachable offenses, Rep. Paul Ryan thinks such a pursuit would only play into the hands of this administration.

“I see this sort of a ridiculous game by the president and his political team to try and change the narrative, raise money and turn out their base for an upcoming election that they feel is not going to go their way,” he said during a recent event in D.C. “And I’ll just leave it at that.”

His concern echoes recent comments by fellow GOP Rep. Steve Stockman who said, although he agrees that Obama deserves impeachment, the prospect would only embolden Democrats. Ryan, on the other hand, does not share Stockman’s view regarding the seriousness of Obama’s offenses.

Even a senior White House source recently confirmed that impeachment is a real potential outcome.

According to Ryan’s estimation, Obama’s actions while in the White House have failed to reach “the high crimes and misdemeanor level.”

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, whose recent book lays out the case for Obama’s impeachment, responded to Ryan’s claim in a National Review editorial Wednesday.

As defined by the nation’s founders, he asserted that the term ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ does not refer specifically to indictable offenses, but “could involve dereliction of duty, lies to Congress or the public about serious matters, the failure to honor an oath (such as the oath to execute the laws faithfully), and any conduct that intentionally undermines the governing framework that safeguards our liberties and security (the president, of course, takes an oath to preserve the Constitution).”

Ryan does, however, support House Speaker John Boehner’s plan to sue Obama for his unauthorized use of executive power, calling that a more “responsible” approach to handling the president’s abuses.

“He’s trying to stand up for congressional prerogatives,” he said, confirming that he plans to vote in favor of the suit. “We want to show we’re not taking this lying down.”

Photo credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom